From the thread I linked.chownah wrote:Having a business in meat is wrong livelihood. This does not show that raising animals is wrong livelihood. Raising animals does not have the intrinsic intention to kill them.....in fact it is possible to raise animals with the intention of providing them a humane existence.seeker242 wrote:"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." AN 5.177 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlchownah wrote:Raising animals with the intent of assuring that they are humanely treated would not be wrong livelihood.
chownah
P.S. Can you find a Sutta reference that says that raising animals is wrong livelihood?
chownah
There are farmers who do treat their animals very humanly. They live out quite nice lives and then sent to slaughter. And they sell "humane meat" as it's sometimes called in the marketplace. These farmers, even though they are very nice to the animals, are still engaged in wrong livelihood because the animals are raised for the purpose of providing meat. By the very definition of that activity, it intrinsically includes the intent to kill them or have them killed, because obviously you can't get meat without the animal being killed.
Raising animals itself is not wrong livelihood. Raising animals to provide meat is. I don't think anyone can afford to raise animals and just give the meat away for free, that would be extremely expensive! The meat would of course have to be sold just to be able to afford raising the animals. This is, by definition, "business in meat" mentioned above.
Another thread that touches on the topic where Bhikkhu Pesala gives a good explanation IMO. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659
I think we all agree that raising an animal will end in the animal's death. You seem to think that in raising an animal one is somehow automatically in some way responsible for their death.
chownah
P.S. Some farmers raise cows and sell cows....they never kill a cow and they never sell meat.
chownah
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.
In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.
A farmer who raises animals to kill, kills them and sells the meat, is wrong livelihood. A farmer who raises animals and does not kill them, but sells them to a slaughterhouse, is still engaged in wrong livelihood. It does not matter if you actually kill the animal and it doesn't matter if you sell actual meat as "business in meat" means selling the animals OR the meat after you have killed the animal. If one raises animals very humanly and then sells the animals to someone to kill, to make meat, this is wrong livelihood. If the purpose of raising the animal is to provide meat, it's wrong livelihood regardless of who actually does the killing, regardless of how the animals are treated and regardless of who sells slabs of meat itself. "Business in meat" includes the whole process of production from the beginning. Even if you were to just breed animals and immediately sell the babies to someone who will raise them for meat, this would still be wrong livelihood.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Trading in flesh, according to the Commentary, means trading in animals for slaughter, whether one raises them oneself, or buys them from the farmer and sells them to the slaughter-house.